Professor of education
nagy.peter.tibor@gmail.com
A version of the published text: University autonomy in Hungary. Myth and Reality. In: (Arild Tjeldvoll (ed.): Education in East/Central Europe. Report of the Oslo seminar. Special studies in comparative education No. 30 intr. by Philip G. Altbach. New York, 1992.
The
autonomy: freedom or hierarchy: The Hungarian Case
I. The expansion of autonomy and
the beginnings of re-interference
The Hungarian liberal opposition in the 1830s and 1840s demanded the freedom
to study and teach. As a prerequisite underlying it, they also demanded the
establishment of a private teaching system. Article
It is a well-known fact that the regime established in the whole of the empire after 1849 and 1850 launched a second wave of modernisation. In this system the neo-humanist intellectuals allied with the technocratic and bureaucratic reformers against the liberal and nationalist forces. This coalition succeeded in making autonomy triumph. The staff of professors as full or non-tenure constituted the university board of directors having the right to become members of the board. The latter body elected the rector and the deans. In questions of more importance university autonomy meant the autonomy of the faculties and not the independence of the university.
After the elections of 1867 the new government continued the policy of guaranteeing university autonomy. Private professors were given the right to conduct exams and the dismissal of tenured professors became increasingly difficult.
With the establishment of the first new university, however conflicts between scientific monopolies and the liberal government arose. A compromise resulted in stating that a private professor could be not only a person appointed by the staff of professors but somebody considered right for position by the minister having the right to give lectures etc. In this sense academic freedom and autonomy became opposing concepts.
In much the similar way ministerial responsibility was also a natural barrier to autonomy. From the beginning of the 1870's and 80's as a prerequisite for acquiring certain qualifications in order to become doctors, lawyers etc., compulsory studies of certain subjects were demanded. The government regulated matters concerning procedure of studies and qualifications; the scope of autonomy the university was in command of consisted of composing the curriculum for the semester, but this too had to be approved of by the Ministry of Religious and Public Education.
In questions of material and intellectual weight serious battles were fought between the ministry and the university especially when the former wished to appoint professors, prominent members of the world's scientific forum but who were rejected by the conservative university leadership. They ran into conflict with one another when the ministry wished to put an end to the dismissal of such professors. /The radical government of 1918 was obliged to suspend autonomy in order to make the appointment of the most famous Hungarian sociologists possible and the ministry, as to what concerns the anti-liberal, anti-communist, anti-semitic campaigns after 1919 was more lenient in such matters than the faculty of medicine for example, although the ministry professed similar ideology./
The bureaucratic rationalisation that became dominant in the Ministry of Culture in the second half of the 1920's reached the universities as well. From 1928 the universities finance office /which was the greatest opposer of autonomy even in the 19th century/ became formally independent from university leadership and the legitimacy of its leader - similarly to that of the university professors - originated from presidential designation. The university boards could give advice to the director of the finance office but the latter was responsible only to the minister.
Between 1920 and 1940 several pretexts were used to limit the autonomy of university even in questions of admission. By introducing and maintaining "numerus clausus" groups who wished to provide positions for the intelligentsia and for the children of the Christian middle class expressed their interest by making efforts to limit the admission of Jews to the university. On the other hand the police had the opportunity to exclude completely the youngsters who were qualified as untrustworthy admission. By 1934 the radically politicised authorities for educational affairs succeeded in making the university no longer accept the graduation exam as a door to admission - a separate qualification was necessary. These efforts were legitimised by the dangers of unemployment among intellectuals and by putting an end to the overcrowdedness of the university.
In 1945 the parliament excluding the majority of the previous political elite broadened the ministry's scope of power over the university system giving permission to introduce measures that earlier would have required the passing of a law in such matters. The political parties - wishing to widen their peasant and working class base in order to establish an intellectual layer loyal to them - had fought to make university entrance possible for those who had not finished secondary school, to be more exact, attending a specialised accelerated secondary schools to obtain graduation diplomas, was also possible. It was the university sphere in this case which tried to defend itself against expansion by keeping up the "numerus clausus".
The ministry taking advantage of its enlarged scope of authority released concrete university curricula even then.
The liberal professors before 1945 who were pressed into the background now had the chance to outline the prospects of a third possibility between traditional university autonomy and ministerial control by bringing about scientific publicity nation-wide as a means of selecting professors. The secretary of the higher educational affairs department in the council of public education wished to grant these privileges to the academy.
All interest groups of university life made moves in behalf of their own power. The deans and the most distinguished professors against the finance offices, the private professors stood up for their equal rights, the students for their representation.
All these ambitions contained an inner logic within the system but in this period only those attempts could succeed which had the assistance of the party.
II. The coalition between the political leadership and the bureaucracy of
educational-scientific, interior ministry force against university
autonomy
From the end of the 1940's the direction of the universities had theoretically stepped "one level higher". The decisions that the ministry had previously made - political decisions and the appointment of professors - passed into the hands of the party's central apparatus and former rights of the university passed into the hands of the ministry. Two tendencies had met: first of all, the wish of the portfolios to have their own universities according to the Soviet example where the direction of higher education was directed from more than one ministry, for example medical training in Hungary was detached from the university of Arts and Sciences and was subjugated to the Ministry of Health.
Off-branches triumphed in scientific life as well, scientific autonomy of the universities was denied. Research and the granting of degrees passed over the Hungarian Academy of Sciences which had become a veritable ministry of science.
The selection of students became a political question because the students who had displayed low standard in their studies but were of working class origins and who had been admitted without a graduation diploma had to be defended.
The process that begun in the 1920's for the equalisation of the finance offices to the detriment of the elected university leadership had become complete, the registrars and staff departments of the university had in fact taken over the managing of affairs of the universities from the rectors and deans.
An intellectual group within the party launched an offence - and at the cost of degrading the faculty and university councils into a counselling organ - they achieved that the deans and rectors appointed by the minister be acknowledged by the party leadership as the sole directors of institutions.
In the period of stalinism and post-stalinism the competition between the staff departments and the deans for power over the university expressed the rivalry between the party's administrative home affairs people and the intellectual-ideologist group. After the death of Stalin the latter group joined forces with the reform-communists and achieved the launching of decentralisation, numerous political decisions passed from the party apparatus back into the hands of the ministry, numerous personnel decisions became once again the rector/dean's authority.
University circles - at the Faculty of Arts for example - succeeded in the liberalising the curricula to some extent, postgraduate scientific training was to continue at the universities even if to a small degree and the title of university professor which had been abolished previously was revived, at least at the University of Medicine.
These ambitions triumphed in part with the help of the 1956 reform movement. The ministry released an official project about codifying university autonomy. In the spring of 1957, however, party and ministry direction was once again reorganised.
III New coalition between the university hierarchy and the political leadership
The regime's political leadership and board of directors at the universities distributed power in such a way that the questions politically important remained in the hands of the ministry and the party center, but in so-called professorial matters they tolerated university autonomy. In the case of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences the faculties liberalised their curricula and university professor titles were re-instituted. /The granting of significant scientific degrees remained in the hands of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences./ The group representing the Ministry of Home Affairs, and Secret Service suffered a complete defeat by 1962: the deans and rectors obtained the right to appoint and to remove the heads of different offices /1962/22 statute/
The economic reform-movement /which meant incorporating market economy elements into the economy planning system / that had began as a result of the Soviet reform movements of 1965 won to a certain degree in 1968 and encountered defeat in 1973. It brought changes in university autonomy, the independence of the university grew in educational matters /they could work out their own curricula/ the influence of the bodies elected by two thirds majority also rose, student rights expanded, and scientific activity also increased at the departments.
It was possible for the university and faculty councils to choose the deputies of the deans and rectors and they had to right to elect the heads of departments as well.
In order to avoid the European student riots in Hungary in 1968, the students were allowed to become members of the elected bodies.
Nevertheless, a great majority of decisions could only be enforced with the approval of the minister of culture who kept the rather "feeble" right of abolishing the decisions that " endangered the interests of cultural policy".
The departments of Marxist studies remained directly under the supervision of the ministry.
The failure of liberalisation menaced the independence and relative autonomy of those universities which were not the stronger members of the portfolio - i.e. the universities which were under the supervision of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture were once again submitted to curriculum control.
In the institutions functioning under the portfolio of education the power of the deans and rectors increased to the detriment of the elected bodies. Direct political interference appeared once more in preferring the admission of students with working class backgrounds.
IV. The coalition between the reform communists and autonomists
against party leadership and university hierarchy
The change after 1978 meant the strengthening of the reform forces which manifested itself in a characteristic way: the competition between the portfolios gave priorities to the Ministry of Education /which did not compromitted itself to the extent other ministries did when reforms were withdrawn/ and by increasing institutional autonomy the strengthening of the one-man leadership was also achieved.
In answer to the opening possibilities numerous reformers joined the
preparations for the different projects. The reform-communist Imre Pozsgay -
who assisted the birth of Hungarian Democratic Forum, the contemporary
government party - was at the head of the ministry from 1980-
The student's parliament which had been summoned in 1983 for discussing the project became the most crucial element in the forthcoming crisis of the regime. For the first time in the history of the student parliaments it was not the "middle of the roaders" but the delegation of Budapest university wholed the events and this meant the triumph of the most radical alternative. It lead to an open conflict with the ministry: it transpired that no reform at the universities was to be wished for on their part. The parliament had shocked the party leadership not only from a state administrative but from a political point of view since at Gödöllő it became evident that the delegation at Budapest university was at the head of the changes.
The people who were members of the party's youth organisations and the political opposition were proceeding forward together in close association. The scholar minister suffered a spectacular defeat before the students and the young leader opposing him, the secretary of Budapest universities's youth organisation became glorified. The shock to the party leadership was increased psychologically by the fact that this young man was called Imre Nagy, just like the leader of the reform-communist movement from 1953-1956, the former prime minister who had been executed in 1958.
Following the reform movements within university politics, the most important demand of which had been the university autonomy and the wish to give more authority to the elected bodies was answered through student participation: The student layer that had become irrevocably activated later became the regime's most radical critic in forming political core of the recently most popular political party of young liberals. /FIDESZ/. On the other hand it had also become clear that a faction had been organised within the party comprised of the university group of the communist youth organisation, educational and scientific circles and a group within the party lead by Pozsgay who were ready to oppose party leadership, the latter being unwilling to introduce radical reforms.
In the meanwhile among the teaching staff unparalleled events took place in the history of the regime. Two departments of the Budapest Faculty of Sciences had a dispute /surprisingly enough it happened between two departments of mathematics/ on the scope of their authority - its actual essence had been the conflict between the professional and the politically legitimised professors. The problem could not be solved by the rector and the ministry which tried to interfere was reported on at the prosecution, finally the Politburo had to deal with the matter.
As a result of the panic originating from these events the forces of centralisation temporarily strengthened. Following the decrees of 1984, the vice rectors and heads of departments were once again appointed by the minister - in fact the appointment of university professors had gone into the hands of the Cabinet to minimise the effect of groups putting on pressure.
In the meanwhile the reform student parliament spirit had spread and had become the backbone of the Communist Youth Organisation's higher education policy while groups of autonomist professors also rejected interference on the part of the ministry. Hierarchical groups considered it more effective not to rely on the ministry that had been continuously losing respect, but to form long-lasting alliances.
In the law of
The control of external forces - scientific and economic circles - was not successful since the most effective lobbyist, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences was paid off when their scientific postgraduate training and their evaluating monopoly were left intact in their hands.
The traces of recentralisation had not disappeared - it was only upon pressure coming from the committees of Parliament it became a law - that the rector and dean etc. to be appointed by the minister must be approved by the faculty, university etc. bodies.
The ministerial apparatus with the help of the party sought the favours of those who opposed the Communist Youth Organisation and the Parliament itself as well, by keeping the plans for curricula in the minister's charge, just like the regulations for its function, international affairs and designating the heads of the departments which were all kept under his control. The decree gave the minister the right to withdraw "institutional decisions that hurt the interest of educational policy". /41/1985 MT/
In the regulation of 1986 the coalition of conservative hierarchical circles and the ministry is quite apparent: It stated that one third of the boards are members because being a member is relative to their position in office /department leaders, vice-deans etc./, the other two thirds can be elected by the teachers and the students each.
At the November session of the Political Committee in 1987 - where the most prominent member of the young technocrats, the future prime minister Miklos Nemeth also took part as secretary of the Central Committee - many supported the idea of expanding university autonomy. From May 1988 as a result of party conference where the "new style of re-establishing order" represented by the technocrats and the reform communists won the battle against the elder members who did not want any sort of change - the right to appoint vice-rectors, deans and heads of departments was granted to universities. From the autumn of 1988 party direction and compulsory ideological instruction ceased to exist.
V. The expansion of autonomy - hierarchy in the forefront
Two important reform forces left the field of education policy: 1/ the leading members of the college movement well-known for their overturning of traditional order in university studies by becoming the political party FIDESZ and stepping onto the national political platform, breaking all ties with university politics, 2/ the young communist leaders standing at the head of the "student reform parliament" group with the break-up of the party receded into background.
With diminishing i.e. changing student activity it became a constant problem for the still active young teaching elite from 1987 how to fill the vacant places with students, although after heavy battles at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences they succeeded in achieving the right for students to be able to elect teachers, thus making it possible for teachers that opposed the views of their colleagues to participate in university politics.
From the spring of 1990 the authority of ministry over the universities ceased to exist. During the change of regime in the transition period the apparatus of the ministry lost its footing. As a result of the above mentioned reasons student ambitions decreased, or rather concentrated on social demands, and the groups of hierarchical character at the universities were not jeopardised by internal and external forces.
The rectors stabilised their power, and formed a Council of Rectors which has become the most important actor of the arena. The heads of departments kept their positions, the younger and more ambitious teachers gave up the battle and formed new departments, new private universities or left for institutions of research which still were under the direction of the ministry or academy.
Notes
Setényi, János: Cyclical expansion in Hungarian education 1945-1985 HIER Bp 1991
Ladányi Andor: Felsőoktatási politika 1949-1958 Bp Kossuth 1983
Kozma Tamás: Érdekcsoportok a magyar felsőoktatásban Bp HIER 1991
Nagy Péter Tibor: A magyar oktatás második államositása Bp HIER 1992
A magyar nevelés története 1. kötet Bp Tankönyvkiadó 1990